An apology

Today hasn't been easy.  To be quoted at PMQs by Gordon Brown and to have so many readers unhappy at what we wrote has produced gloom at ConservativeHome Towers.  We can't apologise for what we wrote.  We stand by our editorial which was clearly marked as a controversial view and as our own.  But we may well have been wrong to publish it today and have communicated our regret to David Cameron's office.  Mr Brown might have still referred to our editorial if we'd published it three, seven or fourteen days ago but we concede that there was a particular danger in us doing so today.  We have held back in the past, see here and here for example.  Although we don't think we had any material affect on the course of events we are sorry we didn't hold back today.  This is our second serious apology in three years of blogging and five thousand plus posts. 

Two other quick observations:

• Over at CentreRight we have created room for a number of anti-42 days pieces and have promoted them on the front page.  We want this site to be home for different opinions and if you read our comment threads you'll know that you are more than ready to help us succeed in that.
• What we won't promise is to avoid difficult topics or hold back in expressing our views.  The site wouldn't be worth having if it became conservatives.com II.  If we think Caroline Spelman is being treated unfairly - as we did at the weekend - we'll say so.  We'll congratulate David Cameron for taking on tough line on MEP sleaze but we'll also give prominence to MPs like Andrew Tyrie when they speak against the party line on an issue, like climate change, where we think the leadership isn't necessarily right. 

Final thought: 42 days may have passed the Commons tonight (on the back of a £200m bribe of the DUP) but it's unlikely to get through the Lords.  The civil libertarians who clearly dominate the readership of this blog can take comfort from that!  Unfortunately, however, the Lords haven't done us proud on Lisbon tonight.

Comments

[Alex Agius.]

Well done guys. Right to appolgise and brave to do so.

Your view is your view and of course you are right to stand by it and have the right to publish it on your own website. As editors of this site you do have a large responsibility,. We can help that Brown has misrepresented your article and attempted to use it against Cameron at PMQ. Lets nail the B***ard!

[Easterross]

Your apology is too little too late. Our party of all people know internment didnt work. As one of the IRA's many intended targets in Brighton in 1983 and as someone who has had friends murdered by the IRA in the 1980s, like many others in our party I need no lessons from Gordon Brown on how to stand up for what is right and good in this country.
You have given in to short-term populist impressions instead of seeking genuine evidence from experts as David Davis did and he voted against.

[kingbongo]

credit where it's due for the apology. I think your support for this disgusting measure is deeply regrettable though.

I think being quoted at PMQs must have been a shock but I do think you deliberately posted today to heighten the controversy of your views which, contrary to fact are now being touted as the majority view of party members. It's you and Ann Widdicombe plus some brass button polishing majors from Surrey.

[Cllr David Sammels]

Can I ask why you didn't just put it as either yourself or Sam's opinion on a Centre Right post? Why make something like this an editorial?

[Tony Makara]

We stand poorer as a nation tonight. Freedom has been lost and the credibility of the house has been undermined. David Cameron put up a great fight in defense of freedom but sadly ignorance prevailed and Labour's big-fix concept of justice won the day. Except that being held without charge isn't justice, it is internment.

[Gerald Sampson]

This generous post stands in marked contrast to the ungracious nature of your critics.

[Huntarian]

It is a brave man who can come straight out and say sorry in the way you have.As I said in my earlier post - I don't agree with your line but I sure as hell think you have every right to express it without fear or attracting some of the abuse I read at lunchtime when I logged on. I think it is worth repeating again -if Ch.com cannot have an independent mind and be free to express it then god help us when we get back into government. I for one would venture to suggest if there had been a channel such as Ch.com from 79 - 97 this country may never have had to endure the Blair years,far less the Broon, as the inherent arrogance that all politicians acquire in government might have been kept in check. Keep up the good work lads-- don't let them grind you down.

[Will S]

I can't understand all this stupid fuss that some readers are kicking up. Editors have a right to their own views and can hardly be expected to stick to the party line on every issue. Perhaps some readers would like DC to appoint an MP as a blogging whip to oversee the blogs and make sure all of them stick to the party line? This is ridiculous.

I'm personally opposed to the detention extension, but a single post by the editors should be acceptable, should not have caused this fuss and did not warrant an apology.

[Justin Hinchcliffe (The DUP's MPs are scumbags!)]

Some say it's 'grown up' to apologise - but I don't think you had any choice on the matter.

You were - and still are - wrong on the issue and, as the posts testify, massively out of step with the membership of the Party.

Unfortunately, for you, people are not going to forget in a hurry. I suspect CCHQ and our MPs will do little or nothing to help you in the future. In that respect, ConHome may die as of today.

Fortunately, though, you didn't have votes, but Ann Widdecombe did - and chose to support the Government. The question, now, is what action, if any, we should take against her? My own view is that she should be punished. And tonight's vote just goes to show how right the Party was to not intervene to save the dishonourable Member for Castle Point form deselection, causing him to jump ship to UKIP.

Sorry to be grim, but it was you who mis-read Conservative opinion and dug your own graves.

[griswold]

You do not owe anyone an apology. Write what you think is right. I don't agree with this botched bill. If you become a Tory mouthpiece, just close down the site. We can always go to Iain Dale's if we want to read CCHQ press releases.

[Huntarian]

It is a brave man who can come straight out and say sorry in the way you have.As I said in my earlier post - I don't agree with your line but I sure as hell think you have every right to express it without fear or attracting some of the abuse I read at lunchtime when I logged on. I think it is worth repeating again -if Ch.com cannot have an independent mind and be free to express it then god help us when we get back into government. I for one would venture to suggest if there had been a channel such as Ch.com from 79 - 97 this country may never have had to endure the Blair years,far less the Broon, as the inherent arrogance that all politicians acquire in government might have been kept in check. Keep up the good work lads-- don't let them grind you down.

[James Burdett]

Well done, gracious without compromising your view. We may disagree from time to time but this is still a great site.

[Brett]

Perhaps you might also apologise for misusing Benjamin Franklin's dictum about liberty and security, since this same site saw fit to post it at the top of CentreRight for over a week. Did its meaning entirely escape you?

[Ted]

Tim and Sam, it is a measure of how much ConservativeHome is read that you get Labour watching what you say, which is a success.

Today shows however the danger of that success. I have no issue with your propounding your views as an editorial nor necessarily with you doing so today but it would have been more reflective of the voice of the party members and supporters to have had two editorial pieces - one from yourselves and another reflecting the party line.

I do take exception though to being dismissed as "civil libertarians who clearly dominate the readership of this blog". Yes it is about civil liberties but more particularly its about British liberties, the liberties fought for from the Norman Conquest onwards against an over-mighty executive, developed to protect the subject then citizen from the oppression of the state.

The laws that up to 2000 allowed detention for only 3 days didn't appear miraculously on tablets handed down, they developed because of the huge injustices visited on the weak and powerless that were fought back over centuries.

The measures passed today will hopefully be defeated in the HoL and if later enacted using the Parliament Act will I believe be overturned by the incoming Conservative government. They didn't pass because the majority of MPs believed they were just but because some were bought, some arm twisted and others out of misplaced loyalty.

[Stephen Yeo]

Yes, you have held back in the past, but you have also been guilty of publishing articles on days helpful to Labour, see here
Maybe a need for some sort of peer review before publication?

[Tony Makara]

It certainly shows how political blogs can be used to legitimize opinion. This is a reason why I have been concerned about the biting anti-Islamic sentiment in some articles and the effect this might have on Conservative foreign policy. Attention seeking rhetoric from political commentators can shape opinion and lead to the sort of foreign policy disasters that we have seen over the last seven years. Those who write for influential blogs need to think how their words might be used and the consequences that could follow.

[Joe Mooney]

Tim,

It is the timing of your editoral that may have upset people. Get it right next time.

This 42 day thing has nothing to do with protecting our country but more to do with saving Gordon Brown.

Well done to the brave Labour MPs who voted against the measure and shame on the DUP.

Overall I think it is another nail in GBs coffin

[John Leonard]

Respect for this. It takes people of integrity to admit a mistake.

Whilst I still disagree with your position you are entitled to have that position and just as I oppose 42 days I would oppose the idea that genuinely felt beliefs cannot be expressed by anyone on any medium.

Moving on, I do wonder, this being a Police matter, how the average Police officer (and others in the emergency, armed and security services no doubt) feels knowing that whilst Brown and Smith cannot find the money to give them their backdated pay-rise in full they can find £200 million to bribe the DUP. This is a real kick in the teeth for them.

Furthermore, I'm sure we would all like to thank the Labour MP's who sold their principles for such worthy causes as the Government 'seriously' considering promoting the removal of the sanctions on Cuba (enhancing our cross-Atlantic relations no-end, no doubt) and so forth.

Perhaps Conhome might set up a Hall Of Shame for those Labour MP's who clearly have no principles of value?

The good news is that after all this, this is likely to plague Brown for the rest of his tenure and will ultimately be declared illegal by the ECHR (if not repealed by a future Conservative Government in the interim) and ultimately have to be repealed.

[Dale]

Very gracious of you to apologise, but you really mustn't let your detractors get you down. Besides, when your being criticised by Justin Hinchcliffe of tottenham conservatives fame then you know you must be doing something right.

[Will W]

Apology accepted; pobody is nerfect! :D

[comstock]

Overall I think it is another nail in GBs coffin

We might not agree on much, but I think it is time that guy was given his marching orders.

What has the government gained from this? Why were they so desparate for this to pass they bribed the DUP?

This won't gain Labour a single extra vote, but it has exagerated splits in the party and given cameron the chance to be opportunistic.

They must have known this would be the case- so why have they gone ahead with this- what is their agenda here?

John McDonnell, your country needs you........

[Sammy Finn]

This was unnecessary but typical. Don't retreat too much. There's enough grey conformity in politics already. CH succeeds because it has edge and independence.

[David]

"will ultimately be declared illegal by the ECHR "

I look forward to the inevitable squeals from this site should that occur, the claims about how undemocratic and illiberal it is the 42-day internment is overturned.

[Justin Hinchcliffe (The DUP's MPs are scumbags!)]

Dale, it's a shame that you have to resort to personal abuse. Hey ho. I think people have to re-read the 'apology' - Tim is only apologising because he got found out and quoted in the House. He doesn't, sadly, apologise for 'Editorial' or its disgraceful stance. I can't say I've been taken in by it.

[Sam R]

A noble and graceous apology, but not necessary. Sincerely held views need no apology (provided they are not advocating the destruction of our people or our society).
It is from both the House of Commons and The Other Place that apologies should issue, but fat chance we have of that.
This has been one of the blackest days ever for our freedom under the Common Law, for habeas corpus, for innocent till proven guilty.
If I were one of those very crafty terrorists who have chosen this country in which to recruit followers to carry out their acts of terrorism in preference to Australia (12 days), Ireland (7 days) or the US (2 days), I would be rubbing my hands in glee. For I have just received the greatest boost to my plans I could ever wish for.
When can we expect to have Jackie suggest that we need to make it a round fifty, or even three months?
First act of a Conservative government should be the abolition of this one, (and the cancelling of any promises of hand-outs or bribes offered to DUP or other unprincipled scroungers).

[batman]

Look guys you were not the difference. So there is no need for these apologies.

[Paul, Southampton]

It is tragic that you have given ammunition to Gordon Brown in this way. My heart sank when I read your earlier piece supporting 42 days and again when I heard the news that Parliament had voted for 42 days. We have always been told that we will not give in to terrorists - we will not let them change our way of life. Well, guess what? Today was a victory for the Marxists in government and a massive morale boost to those who do want to change our country. Personally, I believe that the terrorist threat is overstated and has been from the day that the phrase 'war on terror' was first used. I believe that those who hate our country are the Marxists running it. I attended a meeting on the EU constitution three years ago with Dan Hannan and Frederick Forsyth. Lord Forsyth spoke eloquently about how Tony Blair hated this country and how he had done everything he could to destroy all that was good about Britain. Blair and his fellow Marxists are celebrating because Britain changed more today than it did on 7/7.

It is your website and you are entitled to your opinion and to publish it. You do not have to apologise for doing so. You are right to be controversial and you are right to challenge the Party leadership. But clearly many of your readers are as disappointed as I am. Political blogging is still in its infancy and there is still much to be learnt. Being quoted by the prime minister during PMQs is perhaps a wake up call to say that ConservativeHome is hugely influential and a degree of circumspection will be required when there are contentious debates scheduled in the House.

[Graeme Archer]

Tim. Sei contro il mondo ma hai sempre ragione. Bravo, bravo, caro uomo.

[Ken Stevens]

APOLOGY REJECTED OUTRIGHT!!!!

.... as none was necessary.

It is the forthrightness of this site that makes it worthwhile, even if some misguided dolts have the temerity to put up opinions with which I disagree.

The fact that G. Broon prayed it in supposed aid is ample evidence of the site's influence.

[ChrisD]

"credit where it's due for the apology. I think your support for this disgusting measure is deeply regrettable though.

I think being quoted at PMQs must have been a shock but I do think you deliberately posted today to heighten the controversy of your views which, contrary to fact are now being touted as the majority view of party members."

Yep, I agree entirely with Kingbongo on this.

I said in an earlier post that part of the success of this site is the fact that there is an honest no holds barred debate on issues with all sides able to put their views or opinions. I think that being able to put forward your views, whether they are those of the editorial team or any of us that post from around the UK is vital to the success of ConHom.

But as I pointed out earlier today, I have no doubts that the timing of this unhelpful editorial was designed to cause a stir here and elsewhere in the media, and it backfired big time because its been portrayed as the view of the Conservative grass roots rather than the individual view of the editor.
There has been a lot of hot air and intemperate comments on both sides.

But those that criticise anyone for hotly debating the issue on here today missed the main point. ConHom is seen, and has presented itself as the voice of the grass roots. This draconian measure was solely introduced for political expediency, and then despite all the debate passed solely to "save Gordon Brown's political hide".
So the timing of this editorial has to be put in that context, and that is what made many people so angry.
All credit to ConHom for apologising and I still think this site is the best of its genre, but when you make a calculated effort to cause a stir that's what you will get.

So lets cut out some of the insults I have seen on here today, but don't knock those who have made a genuine attempt to explain why they feel so angry about the timing of today's article. No problem with Tim's view and would happily have jousted about it on the threads here on any other week. But the timing was very off, and the fact that this was not the view of the grass roots not made clear enough.

[comstock]

Don't retreat too much. There's enough grey conformity in politics already. CH succeeds because it has edge and independence.

Hear, hear!! I barely agree with a word Tim or Sam say, but I agree with that remark totally.

Being quoted by the prime minister during PMQs is perhaps a wake up call to say that ConservativeHome is hugely influential and a degree of circumspection will be required when there are contentious debates scheduled in the House.

I think it is a great thing that the blogosphere has reached this point, where it gets quoted in the house. Why should CH not use that influence?

Nothing to apologise for IMHO, and I'm totally against 42 days or even 28.

[Seaford Tory]

Tim

I see no reason to say "sorry" (although I take your point about giving Gordon Clown ammo) but in a democracy (even within a poltical party) it is right to provide a alternative view-even if CHQ and other Tories act like lemmings and jump on the bandwagon just to get a short term political advantage.

I'm sure the DUP needs no lessons from others regarding the effects of terrorism.I'm sure the 200 million quid helped, but they know what it is like to be hit by bombs and bullets.

All the empty headed rchatter about "civil liberties being trashed" is just playing to the gallery-I am a libertarian but I also live in the real world,if you looked at places like Crawley or Luton over the last 15 years and you will see the uncompromising view that the jihadists have.

We were accused of Orwellian Big Brother politics by the left when we amended the Prevention of Terrorism Act during the eighties-now we are seen as being little better than the lunatic left who sing Castro's praises.

The likes of Mercer talk about the fighting the IRA, however this is the year 2008,some aspects of the game are the same,but mass casulties attacks are a long way from what even the Republicans got up to.

I fear in the long run you will be proved right....

[Dale]

"Dale, it's a shame that you have to resort to personal abuse. Hey ho. I think people have to re-read the 'apology' - Tim is only apologising because he got found out and quoted in the House. He doesn't, sadly, apologise for 'Editorial' or its disgraceful stance. I can't say I've been taken in by it."

I think youshould re-read my comment, and try to find any personal abuse.

Hey ho, I guess some people can dish it out but they can't take it.

What would we evr d without the comedy of our great pro-european conservative.

Have a nice night Justin!

[Graham Checker]

Thank you Tim. Well done for apologising.

Can't have been an easy thing to do. And it was certainly the right thing to do.

I would also like to see you clearly marking all your future editorial posts as your *own* views please. With no room for ambiguity that your views, in any way, represent the views of the grassroots.

Rather than "ConservativeHome thinks..." or "ConservativeHome believes..." the use of "The Editors of ConservativeHome - Tim M and Sam C - believe/have a different view on 'X'.." etc.

This might avoid similar faux pas in future.

[RichardJ]

"John McDonnell, your country needs you........"

To wreck the economy and give the Tories another 20 years. Brown has probably give us at least 10.

[Graeme Archer]

Justin I'm at a loss to follow your reasoning. Being out of step should never, ever be an excuse for not stating your belief. Err, surely you and I should understand that quite well?

[comstock]

and he would be worse than Brown, how, exactly, Richard??

We don't want Cameron, and we don't want Brown. Clegg is a joke. He might as well have 18 months and see what he can do.

[Oberon Houston]

Tim, I'm staying out of this, as you know how I feel on 42, and we clearly disagree.

Today may have been a bad time to get press coverage for supporting Brown (on a law that is a dogs dinner) just when he needs support against a resurgent Conservative Party, and I only recall the Bercow 'scoop' as the other red faced editorial gone cold on this site. Only barb I would add is that IDS loves rebelling, don't cherish that habit as he does, if you've any sense.

Despite our odd differences, you (and Sam of course) are doing a fantastic job. This is a truly great site and its all down to your hard work, skill, and considerable dedication.

[Andrew Lilico]

I am not sure that the Editors here are spinning this right at all. It seems to me that they had the thought that if it were a matter of Gordon Brown going down to defeat, then they would hold back, but they wanted to make their stand on the principle of the thing. So up to a few days ago, when the vote still seemed in the balance, they didn't post - and, on that story, ought not to have done. This morning, I take it, they assumed that their intervention could not conceivably any longer make any difference, since the government had it in the bag. So they posted.

But in fact it seems to me that the vote turned out to be a lot closer than most people were expecting this morning. Nick Robinson, for example, said he thought the government would win without needing the DUP votes. He was quite wrong. It would only have been a question of five more Labour rebels thinking that if they voted with us then Gordon would go - that could be one "backbench-leader" and his cronies. But the thought that the Conservatives might split and that there might even be half a dozen Conservative rebels might well have put those five Labour backbenchers off.

So in my view there is, in fact, a less-than-trivial chance that the Editors' intervention saved Gordon Brown from resigning this evening, and delivered the passage of the 42 days measure.

So, if that *wasn't* what the Editors hoped to achieve, then they misjudged matters. On the other hand, in fact it seems to me this this must have been *precisely* what the Editors hoped to achieve (even if they thought it unlikely). For their position, as I understand it, is that this is a good-of-the-country before good-of-the-party matter. They weren't intervening at the time of the party forming it's policy, so it wasn't intended as an input into that debate. Rather, they were urging that, regardless of what the whipping situation might be and regardless of whether Gordon Brown's government might be brought down, it was so important that the increased detention period passed that they hoped Conservative MPs might violate the three-line whip. They regarded it as a matter of principle.

So, they should not be apologizing, but, rather, proclaiming victory. It woz ConservativeHome what won it! 42 days passed, and Gordon survived.

So, guys. In your matter of great principle you were the victors, and I and mine were defeated. Well done. Perhaps next time we'll be on the same side, but another day I and mine might face you again, and perhaps next time it will be our turn to win...

[SholingNeil]

You are right to say sorry. Doing this today as hurt the party. Sky have comments on Boulton and Co impling that Cameron now faces disagreement with the grassroots.

You do not speak for the grassroots as a whole. One of the great strengths of our party is that we are able to disagree unlike Labour who try and bully and buy people off.

[Hardcore Conservative]

You have nothing to apologise for.

I very much disapprove of locking people up for 42 days, as we are a supposedly free country and this measure is alien to that principle, just as apologising for expressing a sincerely held opinion is. So if you believe in free speech do not apologise for exercising your right to it.

In a free country, within reason obviously, you have the right to offend and be offended. People do this to each other on this site all the time.

So get off your knees and do what you do best – express opinions without the constraints of political correctness, and then people can agree or not as the case may be. Nobody is forced to come on here to read opinions and express a view, but if they wish to do so then they play by your rules.

[Cranmer]

Gentlemen,

It is a measure of your personal integrity and evident humility that you have apologised, but as many have already stated, no apology is necessary or due, either to your readers or to the Office of the Leader.

His Grace disagrees vehemently with you on this matter, and has said so. But how on earth does policy ever develop or change if debate is stifled and differences of opinion are viewed as disloyalty?

There is no shame in holding your view, and although His Grace does not agree with what you have to say, he shall defend to the death your right to say it.

[Jaz]

Though I believe it has not done any damage, it is indeed a poor, poor, idea to have published this on the day of the vote.

The apology is feable, this party had a clear strategy on 42 days, and given that we have been against extending the deadline since Michael Howard's leadership.

This blog is far far more influential now than during the leadership diary. Be careful in the future, since disunity will destroy us, and we must win the next election with a clear agenda with all conservative thinkers - Something this website should advocate.

[Conand]

Thanks CH Editors for the apology.

I for one however was never annoyed with you. I was annoyed with Brown for making it sound like the majority of the readership of the blog (& by implication all Conservative members!) agrees with him and you, which it clearly doesn't. That was after he had tried to call this 'THE Conservative website' i.e. He was happy to imply that the Conservatives had made a mistake on their own website.(Brownie count +1)
I'm a happy conservative today though, I agree with our party leader not because of expediency or some dodgy deal, I agree with him because on the 42 day issue, as like so many others, he says exactly what I'm thinking.
Just for the record Gordon, it isn't 'opposition for opposition's sake' it's constructive opposition based on our principles..just like New Labour in the 90s NOT.

[Editor]

Cllr David Sammells: "Can I ask why you didn't just put it as either yourself or Sam's opinion on a Centre Right post? Why make something like this an editorial?"

David: CentreRight is a place for Sam and I to post our own individual views and particularly on topics that are 'less about the Tory Party' and so a bit out of place here. We agreed the editorial last night and made it clear that it was our view, not the view of many readers and 92% of candidates.

Thanks for your comment Andrew. The likelihood of Brown winning today was certainly in our minds.

[Dave H]

I think it was right to apologise in this case. Fair play to you.

Of course you have every right to express your opinion, but I thought it was wrong to express it today, in an editorial, which Brown was only too eager to use as one of his Brownies.

Then driving home from work to hear of all people Kitty Usher on the 5pm BBC news spouting on about the views of the Conservative Party was the last straw!

The number of comments today does go to show how much we all care about this site. So let's agree to disagree on this one and move on.

[Jonathan M. Scott]

You did right by publishing your editorial. It's a democracy, after all.

I don't agree with Dan Hannan's bribe theory, because the DUP MPs aren't liars. People shouldn't accuse Reverend William McCrea MP, for example, of telling lies.

Nor do I subscribe to the belief that internment radicalised Sinn Fein/IRA - that was the Heath Government's propaganda to justify doing away with internment and the Stormont Assembly in the 70s.

Abolishing internment actually allowed the IRA to have breathing space and not enough intelligence could be gathered.

[Anonandon]

No apology needed - except for the appalling "CentreRight is a place for Sam and I" @ 22.56

[HF]

Editor, thank you for the apology on timing.

But I still think you were wrong to publish the view under the site's banner name rather than in Centre Right under your own name.

Today our liberty took a step backwards.

[ChrisD]

"Nor do I subscribe to the belief that internment radicalised Sinn Fein/IRA - that was the Heath Government's propaganda to justify doing away with internment and the Stormont Assembly in the 70s.

Abolishing internment actually allowed the IRA to have breathing space and not enough intelligence could be gathered."

If you really believe that tripe, then god help us. Every soldier I know who served in Northern Ireland at that time has no doubts that it did act as recruitment sergeant for the IRA. But, hey what do they know.....

[Man in a Shed]

No one gets everything right. What you do is really important for democracy and party politics in the UK. Its also very much appreciated by people like myself.

Don't feel to bad about it. If anything PMQs will just push more curious people this way, and winning the debate is the prelude to winning power.

Just look both ways for a vengeful cyclist before crossing the road for the next few days.

[Philip]

The civil libertarians who clearly dominate the readership of this blog Two points:

1) The ‘liberty’ these “libertarians” so want to defend would be lost if those who want to attack us (and others who aren’t terrorists but still want to turn us into a Muslim state), had their way. It might be true that as the editors said on the “Our case for 42 days” post, (The terrorists) won't be satisfied until we are destroyed or enslaved .

2) The “civil libertarians” may be in a majority here but not ‘out there’ among the public, who opinion polling suggest support 42 days. It seems the public have beter instincts than the politically-involved here.

I don’t think CH need have apologised – as was pointed out, Mr Brown would have used it if it was published earlier. Also, it had to be said before the HOC vote. We must not allow ourselves to be silenced by the intimidation of a crowd (I deliberately did not say ‘majority’- see comment 2) above)

I have felt uneasy about official Conservative position on this. Seems a bit too politically opportunistic, rather than principled. I thought security of our nation would be our major concern. We are often told about the more serious nature of the current threat, whereby terrorists want to kill as many as possible, not just do economic damage or make a point. I don’t see this as ‘trashing’ ‘our’ liberties, as we are talking about terrorist suspects, not the general population, and only in very limited circumstances and with other safeguards.

I find it surprising that Conservatives argue that extended detention periods of suspects will give terrorists what they want and be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism etc. I thought we believed in individual responsibility whereby it is the terrorist who is responsible for deciding to be a terrorist, as it is the perpetrator of a crime and no-one else who’s responsible for the crime.

[Lobster Blogster]

Brown's position on 42 days had absolutely nothing to do with principle; he has been searching for an issue to make a stand on. Your editorial must have looked like a godsend to him. He has asserted his authority over his own party, and made it look as if Cameron is looking over his own shoulder at the views of his own party activists. Now Brown has gone further than Blair, and can always say that the Conservatives voted against a piece of "anti-terror" legislation.

As a Green, I am horrified to see our liberties being eroded to feed Brown's vanity (or even to save his Premiership), but I also feel obliged to indicate to you that you have been taken in by a piece of sheer politicking.

[Northernhousewife]

I think the independence of this site is welcome. Compare it with the supine Lib Dem Voice when they go off to the 'private area' when it is controversial or LabourHome which has only recenlty woken up.

But big isn't always beautiful.
You are in the big league now as are we as a party.
People are desperate to get something on us.
You are seen to speak for us.

Can't afford to be niave.

It was partly the timing. But not its not just that. Whilst it was disingenious for others to say you spoke for us [in my case you certainly did not] it is clear that you can rely on two things:

Our opponents will be disingenuous.

You will be seen to speak for us and therefore must accept a responsibily.

I wonder if anyone will bother to report the backlash you guys have had.

[ChrisD]

"2) The “civil libertarians” may be in a majority here but not ‘out there’ among the public, who opinion polling suggest support 42 days. It seems the public have beter instincts than the politically-involved here."

Philip, a few points to ponder.
When you criticise the Libertarians on here, do you think for one minute that Joe public has looked at, never mind read the detail of this bill? Do you think that they are aware of the dogs dinner that is the concessions to it? Do you think they were aware of how much it cost the government to buy the amount of votes needed and what that entailed?
No, all they heard was lock up terrorists without trail. Yes, they are assuming that only the guilty will suffer this detention.
Now when you put it in that context, you realise how strong a case David Cameron made today when he said it was for Parliament to do its job. This is yet another shoddy law, ill thought out and will be badly implemented.
Brown is a very dishonest politician who has no problem misleading or exaggerating the facts to suit his argument. Yet you would seek to trust him to impose a law that has no solid evidence to give it any legitimacy and was only ever intended to make him and his government look tougher than the opposition.
What a strange day that I never thought I would see. I disagreed with Ann Widdicombe's position while I applaud Diane Abbot's passionate defence of our liberties.
And as for saying that the Conservative party position on this is opportunistic - incredible naivety, and something I would not repeat in front of David Davis.

[max u]

Well thanks for the apology!

However you apparently still stand by your views- you obviously believe that some English traditions (habeas corpus) are less equal than others.

Does it not ocur to you the extent to which detention without trial (even for only 42 days) offers an opportunity for coercion to future govenments. Dont fool yourselves that it couldnt happen- you only have to see the use by councils of anti-terror laws against minor misdemeanours to appreciate that the will to misuse extraordinary powers exists.

[Alexander Smith]

Why are you apologising? This undermines your position. As you say, you are NOT conservatives.com II, you are not an official organ of the party; you're an independent entity. If it was the right thing to do to defend the Govt., which it was, then it was the right thing to do two weeks ago, one week ago, a few days ago and especially on the day the vote was made. To have said, after the vote- "yes, that was the correct thing to do"- would have been cowardly.

You had nothing to apologise for, but you have, because Dave was annoyed that not everyone on the Right was willing to toe his arbitrary line of yes to 28 but no to 42. For all Dave has done for the fortunes of the Party- and he has done a lot, and I have been proved wrong on him- he does not handle dissent very well. He's going to have to learn that a) he is not the leader of the conservative movement, such as it is, in Britian, but of the Conservative Party: people on the Right are allowed to disagree with him; b) he certainly has not earned the right to be the leader of the Right considering he is shaky on a number of key conservative principles; c) it's exactly his sort of pragmatic politics which is the reason there is not a stronger, more solid, wider conservative movement in Britain, as there is in the US.

You were right in your editorial- which, as you said, stood by such figures as Melanie Phillips, Ann Widdecombe and Norman Tebbit (people who ARE key figures on the Right and in the conservative movement)- and you were wrong to apologise.

[RichardJ]

"and he would be worse than Brown, how, exactly, Richard??"

Old Labour economic policies.

"If you really believe that tripe, then god help us. Every soldier I know who served in Northern Ireland at that time has no doubts that it did act as recruitment sergeant for the IRA. But, hey what do they know....."

One soldier I know used to do the interrogations. His view was that internment in the early 70s was a complete cockup. They arrested the wrong sort of people (IRA leaders who were passed it) and simply alienated a sympathetic Catholic community. However, internment in the late 1970s was far more effective at hobbling IRA operations and many of the people interned were correctly identified as terrorists (as is shown by the fact that upon being realeased some of them proceeded to murder British servicemen). That said I think 42 days is a disgrace and frankly I'd prefer the American limit of 4 days.

[David]

Tim! Tim! You got mentioned on Today! True, it was to undermine the Conservatives, but who cares? It's your career that's the most important thing!

[David]

"1) The ‘liberty’ these “libertarians” so want to defend would be lost if those who want to attack us (and others who aren’t terrorists but still want to turn us into a Muslim state), had their way"

So, your answer is to do their job for them?

[r.totale]

Too little too late. Hope your site dies on its arse.

[David Galea]

Right, let's laugh at ourselves and move on.

When the Conservatives win the general election, they can clear away any rubbish left by New Labour.

[Miles]

Tim-Nothing much to add. Just remember whilst your own views on all things may be mainstrem in the Party, they certainly aren't always in the country. If you do anything like this again, you'll become a target yourself, the closer we get to an election and the greater the changes of Conseravtives winning. All people should know that there is no one definition of 'being a conservative. Let's not sabotage each other over this or anything else.

[Gareth]

Yeah,yeah, big men for saying sorry, well done on the contrition front Timmy. But that's not the issue is it?!

Your very judgement over both subject and timing are now deeply under the microscope. You called it and you called it appallingly. Perhaps you might like to let me know when I can next trust your veracity and judgement.

ConHome is not yet dead but by christ has it just inflicted some major self harm!

Maybe you're too up yourselves. Get out more, listen and reflect in both senses of the word.

At this moment I feel that in one act of juvenile posturing, you have deeply undermined the Conservative cause. Win me back

[Iain]

I don't think there is a need to apologise for putting up an alternative view, the problem was that the article somehow implied that this was the ConservativeHome position, and in doing so this allowed Labour and the BBC to suggest all the users of this website were in support of 42 days, when this was far from the case.

I hope you are calling up the BBC and getting them to correct the misleading impression they gave on the Today program this morning that ConHome users were opposed to the position Cameron took on 42 days.

[Ulster Tory]

I disagree with the stance you took, but I respect your decision to take it, and give both sides of the argument on CH.

I think it is testament to the pluralistic nature of our party, that we can debate and discuss different opinions. How boring (and ineffective) would it be if we all had the same ideology?

[Steve R]

You don't need to apologise for anything.

It's just a shame that despite all the very fine arguments against the 42-day extension without charge, you still stick to your view, but oddly don't engage with any of the points being made against this legislation.

I'd be more impressed, if you admitted that your view was the mistake. I can only assume it was, because you've not really countered any of the points made by others opposed to yesterday's vote.

[Ulster Tory]

"One soldier I know used to do the interrogations. His view was that internment in the early 70s was a complete cockup. They arrested the wrong sort of people (IRA leaders who were passed it) and simply alienated a sympathetic Catholic community. "

True.

"However, internment in the late 1970s was far more effective at hobbling IRA operations and many of the people interned were correctly identified as terrorists (as is shown by the fact that upon being realeased some of them proceeded to murder British servicemen)."

Possibly because Internment without trial ended in 1974-75?

As D Hamill (Marines Officer) said in the aftermath, 'It (internment) has, in fact, increased terrorist activity, perhaps boosted IRA recruitment, polarised further the Catholic and Protestant communities and reduced the ranks of the much needed Catholic moderates.'

Internment didn't work - simply annoyed the civil rights lot and coupled with Bloody Sunday angered people into supporting the IRA.

"That said I think 42 days is a disgrace and frankly I'd prefer the American limit of 4 days."

I concur!!

[David Belchamber]

Tim, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I will spare you the quote about the mother-in-law: "She has two points of view; hers and the wrong one".

At least you have the (dubious?) satisfaction of knowing that 10 Downing Street is keeping an eye on ConHome; did Incapability Brown call it the best of the conservative blogs?

[Ulster Tory]

Brown got it wrong.

"The Conservative party’s members’ website, ConservativeHome, also said this morning" (Scource: Hansard)

However, the wesbite clearly says that it is "independent of the Conservative Party but supportive of it", and also says "there is room on Conservative Home for all strands of party opinion". (Source: Resource page)

Gordon clearly got it wrong - The website states it is for supporters of the Conservative Party, not the official member's website, and also clearly implies that it will show all opinions in the party. Mr Brown needs to research these things before making rash statements.

Maybe some of the earlier commenters should read the ConHome manifesto - "the Conservative coalition is strong when it is broad and deep."

[johnC]

It's good to know that Gordon reads this website, and let's hope he is influenced by some of the other discussions on here.

For a penance, Tim and Sam can go leafletting in Henley every day between now and June 26th.

[Vienna Woods]

Always difficult when you realise that you have caused hurt or damage to others by an inconsidered remark, misplaced and almost immediately deeply regretted. Whilst I am quite sure that your principles are honourable, you choose to use "Conservative" and "Home" in your title which, on the face of it, was probably deliberately selected to confuse the natives, which is why Dumbo Brown thought it was the Conservative Home-page.

If a blogger such as Iain Dale had published an opinion such as yours it would have been noticed but never referred to at PMQ's, even though his blog is very well known.

It all boils down to the fact that if you choose the Conservative banner instead of "Tim's Centre Right Blog" (or whatever) then you should perhaps be reading from the same music.

[Londoner]

Apology fully accepted. We love ConHome really.

I also love Shami Chakrabarti's comment quoted in today's Telegraph:

"Recent years have shown how forgetting Britain's moral compass has left our country less safe; so on to the House of Lords - once more the guardian of fundamental rights."

That's what I call a double whammy: Gordon floored with one blow and the constitutional vandals who want to dismantle the House of Lords with the other. Give the glorious little woman a peerage, double quick please, and put her in the next Govt. Although she is not a Conservative, she could teach many senior Conservatives a thing or two about defending our institutions (and their speech writers how to craft a turn of phrase). Will the last Conservative who still thinks a majority elected Upper House would be an improvement please turn out the lights?

[Louise Bagshawe]

Nobody gets through a year in politics without making any mistakes. A very gracious apology for the poor timing. I'm one of the 92% of PPCs for civil liberties, but ConHome's strength has always been its willingness to publicise every shade of blue opinion; the editors have a right to their own.

So on to attacking Labour again. Fish, meet barrell :)

[Ken Stevens]

Labourhome seems to be envious:
"It seems from PMQ that Gordon (or his team) reads conservativehome - so presumably his team looks in here as well. What message(s) can we send him or them?"
It has a Poll on Messages to Gordon --
#Delegate more
#Relax a bit and take some holiday
#Keep on - you're doing a great job
#Drop 42 Days and ID Cards and focus on what really matters
#Move left
#Move right
#resign with honour and encourage a genuine election for your successor
#Something else

At time of writing, "Resign" is level pegging with "Move Left", both on 35%.

Presumably, to continue emulating CH with sedition and comfort to the enemy, the commissar-in-chief of LH should apologise and not claim to represent grassroots Labour opinion?

Or perhaps in both cases we simply accept that this is a forum for diverse range of opinion, of which only mine is right.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

" Will the last Conservative who still thinks a majority elected Upper House would be an improvement please turn out the lights?" - food for thought, Londoner. I will have to re-consider my position.

[Old Hack]

So lets move on already!

GB is still in the poo and we all have work to do.

T you should apologise more often - it seems to be popular.

[Disaffected Conhomer]

Silly comment yesterday, decent to apologise today.

This, unfortunately, smacks of hubris: "This is our second serious apology in three years of blogging and five thousand plus posts."

[John Glen]

Your gracious apology on the timing of your editorial but not the substance is a testimony to your character and integrity.

This site is not here to parrot the party line but to provoke debate and challenge on all issues. It does so admirably. It was grim to see the PM use your material in the House but even if the timing of the posting was not ideal your desire to stand up for what you believe in and take on the party line (e.g. on MEPs selection process) is critical.

Noone else has the resolve and character to address the issues in such a principled and tenacious way. Power won with principles for a purpose is better than winning power on a series of tactical "quick wins" in the House.

I hope CCHQ have the grace to accept your apology on the timing and given the sheer volume of material you post realise noone is perfect.... one score draw in the House at PMQs does not undermine the momentum of the Party or breathe life into a PM who has no brand equity left with the public and no ideas for Government.

[Ay Up]

"This, unfortunately, smacks of hubris: "This is our second serious apology in three years of blogging and five thousand plus posts.""

It is impressive. Most broadsheets could make two serious apologies every single day.

[niconoclast]

Apologise for being Conservative? Apologising for having values?! Is self-loathing a tory thing?!

[Northern Conservative]

This site has never been a home for Conservative activists. It's run by someone with his own views, direction he wants the Party to go down and an assistant.

I've always thought it daft and pompous to have 'editorials' and present the site as if it were some huge organisation. This has generated negative publicity for the Party time and again from lazy journalists looking for easy quotes dressed up as being representative of the grass roots.

[Mr Eugenides]

I'm disgusted by the 42 day vote and disagree with you strongly on the issue, but you have nothing to apologise for. If ConHome is not independent then it is nothing. Every blog, big or small, should feel free to take whatever editorial line it likes on any issue.

My contempt is reserved for those who parrot a party line unfailingly and without relection. They're not worth reading; dissent is.

[Ay Up]

"This, unfortunately, smacks of hubris: "This is our second serious apology in three years of blogging and five thousand plus posts.""

It is impressive. Most broadsheets could make two serious apologies every single day.

[Peter Holttum]

I was very shocked that ConservativeHome came out in support of such an illiberal measure as 42 days - irrespective of the timing. Some of us rely on you for a more thoughtful conservatism. What distinguishes great leadership is not following focus groups - but leading conservative opinion from the front in a principled way. Mrs Thatcher did this - and yes Mr Heath too - rightly or wrongly towards Europe. Seeing the old party lurking behind is very disturbing.

[grumpy old man]

ChrisD. As a soldier serving in NI at the time, I'm with you 100%. You must, however, realise that our mostly empirical knowledge of terrorism must concede the debate to those with intrinsically vastly superior purely theoretical knowledge of what makes terrorists tick. On the subject of the apology, I do not believe an apology was required. The strength of Conservative home is having editors who are brave enough to provide a forum which challenges sacred cows and other preconceptions.
Ed, as you have probably realised, I believe your support of 42 days almost criminally negligent - but especially in a Party which believes in freedom, it is essential that you have the right to make your point. What you should have done is publish a rebuttal of your argument by a journalistic peer who is on the other side of the argument. At least you could have put DC on the high ground of being unafraid to allow debate, thereby practicing what he preaches.
Please continue to act as a forum of Debate and give oxygen to our Parties' intellectual development.
To those who make dire threats about the future of conhome, you are doing what our opponents want - just like you supporters of 42 days. To the supporters of 42 days, I recommend, "Voices of Terror", edited by Walter Laqueur containing excerpts from the manifestos, writings and manuals of "Alky Ada",Hamas, and other terrorists around the world and through the ages, published by Reed press and available on line.

[The Ghost of Tony Makara's Sanity]

Too little, too late. An utterly pointless, snivelling, introspective non-apology: "We're sorry, but we're not sorry, because we still think we're bigger than the Conservative Party". Giving material support to the opposition? How naive to think that it wouldn't be used.

You really need to consider changing your name to ToryTalibanHome... Who do you actually represent, otherwise?

The party might have a big tent for all its supporters, but it's still far too small when I have to share it with the likes of you.